Author David Goodman talks to Ars about writing history for an entire galaxy.

If humanity were to make contact with other intelligent life forms in the universe, how would our civilization respond? Would countries and individuals scramble for power? Or would humans band together to focus on the exploration of other planets and their cultures? The universe of Star Trek has been exploring these questions for decades, and the storylines of the TV shows offer a speculative vision of what humanity might do if it makes contact.

The new coffee table book Star Trek Federation: The First 150 Years collects the chronology of pivotal events in Star Trek history, tells the story of how humanity made contact with other life in the universe, and recounts the subsequent formation of the Federation. The volume is written like a history book, and it uses illustrations, historical documents, and the writing of its "historian," author David Goodman.

"My favorite part of the book is the Romulan War, because so little had been said about it in the TV series and films. Romulans had their own pressure and ambitions driven by leaders." – Author David Goodman

Goodman, a veteran of science fiction and television, wrote the book in close collaboration with a team of illustrators. He worked on a variety of television shows including The Golden Girls, Futurama, and Family Guy, where he served as executive producer for several years. He is responsible for the Nebula-Award-nominated Futurama episode "Where no fan has gone before" which lampooned Star Trek and its fandom. He also worked as a writer for Star Trek: Enterprise. David Goodman talked to Ars about how he pulled Star Trek's historyinto a single book.

The book’s text tells the linear story of first contact and the formation of the Federation, and it's illustrated in full color illustrations showing familiar scenes and crews. Goodman added an additional level of realism by creating a series of newspaper articles, memos, treaties, captain’s notebooks, and other historical documents that help tell the story from multiple points of view.

"The book is filled with historical documents," Goodman said. "In the early stages of developing the book, we laid out briefly what sections of Star Trek history the book was going to tell. From Cochrane meeting Vulcans all the way through the events of the film Undiscovered Country, I wrote additional historical documents for each chapter."

The First 150 Years covers familiar episodes in the Star Trek canon, including Cochrane’s explorations in warp technology, the Romulan War, the formation of the Federation, and the newer eras, which include the leadership of Captain James T. Kirk. Fans will notice that in telling the story this way, Goodman is covering major ground while also shedding light on new events.

"Every part of writing the book was a challenge," Goldman said. "There are pieces of history in the book that go from the Federation’s history all the way through Enterprise. These events are part of the TV series, but it was important to write this so I wasn’t simply summarizing episodes. Some of those episodes hit some of the points covered in the book, but in many ways I told the story of event that previously haven’t been covered."

Goodman considers himself a fan of the series before he considers himself one of its contributing creators. He says he has been obsessed with Star Trek since age 11, and when it came to writing the book he was careful to hit the right tone to please other Star Trek fans.

"That was my guiding principle," Goodman said. "I didn’t want to write anything in Star Trek Federation: The First 150 Years that would bother me as a fan. There are dots of history dropped throughout the Star Trek television series, but they don’t all connect naturally. The Eugenics wars and World War III—they are 50 years apart. Are they the same thing? How do you connect that? It was a big challenge. I worked to not contradict anything in Star Trek history that was in TV or in the movies. It required a lot of creative problem solving."

The book serves as a great connector of Star Trek chronology for hardcore fans, but it can also help new readers and viewers understand the groundwork for the Star Trek universe.

David Goodman does have a favorite captain in the canon: Captain Decker. "One of my favorite episodes is Doomsday Machine [in the original series]. His story is one of the most compelling tragic falls from grace."

The Star Trek mythology is alive and well, thanks to the latest J.J. Abrams films and the support of fans. Goodman said that there are big ideas to be gleaned from each iteration of the Star Trek history.

"In our world today, most humans are only driven by self interest," Goodman said. "There are truly very few people who are selfless. Star Trek has always been about societies where the number of people who are selfless outnumber those who are selfish. Together, they work together to help humanity move forward."

Promoted Comments

You know, I'm a thoroughly dedicated Star Trek fan; I watched the original series avidly in the 1970s as a kid, and I've enjoyed all the movies (some more than others) and the new series (some more than others)...and I regard this book as an overwhelming waste of time for the author and the readers both.

I have nothing against detailed "world-creation" (or what Tolkien called subcreation) from Homer to William Blake to A. Conan Doyle, it's been a great human pasttime. But while some subcreated worlds (Larry Niven's "Known Space" cycle of stories; Middle Earth) are designed for this kind of scrutiny and flourish when examined this closely, others, like Star Wars and Star Trek and the Marvel comics "Universe," just don't.

Like the Sherlock Holmes stories, the various parts of Star Trek were just too haphazardly assembled and jury-rigged to be made to add up to a cohesive whole that has any faux-historical meaning. And, unlike Doyle's famously incoherent Holmes stories (which have a thoroughly inconsistent chronology), the Trek universe was created over many decades by dozens of writers, working very quickly and under duress, each of whom was more concerned with the particulars of his or her individual narratives than with attempting to fit their work into the cumulative Trek mosaic.

What Trek needs -- what it thrives under -- is cultural and literary analysis. Understanding what these stories mean in the context of the historical backgrounds of the television productions (civil rights and Vietnam informing the original show; globalism and technological considerations driving The Next Generation, which also went in for attempts at more detailed and abstracted character studies; post-Cold War sensibilities influencing Deep Space Nine) , as well as understanding why Star Trek is so good -- why its characters and stories and abstracted concepts represent the very best science fiction has to offer -- this is what's interesting; not the endlessly dreary retconning, fudging and whole-cloth invention that feeds into this kind of project.

"Nerdliness" is famously about escapism; about leaving the real world for an imaginary one. As a card-carrying nerd who's also an adult, I very much prefer it when fantastical stories have some bearing on reality (as did, for example, the superb recent Battlestar: Galactica). It's no accident that "the straights" start to take interest in "our" stuff when it gets out of its own hermetically-sealed bubble and starts acknowledging reality. This book is a step in the exact opposite direction.

ON EDIT: I'll give a couple of specific examples. The "Organian Peace Treaty" (which essentially nullifies all possible subsequent conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, by fiat) was introduced in the original show. Obviously the only point of the "Organian Peace Treaty" was to allow the writer to make a wry, telling point about war itself -- how even the pacifists (like Captain Kirk) become warmongers in the end, when disputed "neutral" territory is involved. The Organians are a great Rod Serling-style conceit because they look like the weak, uncivilized innocents who always occupy danger zones in wars (as Kirk remarks) but they're actually superhuman sophisticates who have the power to end the entire conflict. The Organians are the perfect sci-fi plot device: their actions bring home the point of the fable in a way that makes for a thoughtful meditation on warfare. The problem is that it completely destroys the possibility of any subsequent conflict with the Klingons, which is why it got carefully ignored in all subsequent Trek.

Another example is the Cochrane/Vulcan/Borg story. I liked Zephram Cochran when he first appeared in the original show. I liked the idea that one man invented warp drive; it made sense in the context of the episode's story (which required a recognizable earthman from the past). But I thought that the story they contrived for First Contact was, frankly, idiotic. The strained contrivances by which a group of writers forced Picard's Enterprise, the Borg, and Cochrane into a single plot simply because those were the elements that were deemed commercially viable for the movie thoroughly turned me off; it's obviously not the same Cochrane; it's (in my opinion) a dumb, unsatisfying story, and there's no reason for subsequent Trek to regard it as gospel. This is one of many reasons I loved the J. J. Abrams movie, which (as happens all the time in comics) had no compunctions about throwing it all out and starting over. To do what this book is doing -- to struggle with all this dross and minutia in the belief that the cumulative "history" has an overarching value or meaning -- is to completely miss the point of the whole endeavor.

(Also, Vulcans say "Live long and prosper" when they're leaving, not arriving.)

It's nice to have this book so that if the studios ever decide to make another prequel to the Original Series, the scriptwriters can contradict everything the book says -- including stuff established in Enterprise, of course.

This looks great and would make a great Christmas gift for my brother.However, it's way out of my price range for a Christmas gift. Which is a shame because $56 at Amazon is a wonderful price. It's just more than I can reasonable spend on any one sibling.

"""David Goodman does have a favorite captain in the canon: Captain William Windom. "One of my favorite episodes is Doomsday Machine [in the original series]. His story is one of the most compelling tragic falls from grace.""""

It was a big challenge. I worked to not contradict anything in Star Trek history that was in TV or in the movies. It required a lot of creative problem solving."

As witnessed in every Star Trek thread.

I don't see the problem. If an application of moralizing doesn't solve it, apply some combination of phasers and proton torpedoes. If that doesn't work either invert the polaron emitters, route plasma flow through the jeffries tubes, or modulate the output of the main deflector. Problem solved!

That said, it would be nice to see a scifi series with a bible, and that sticks to said guide. The Abrams movies offer a pretty good opportunity to do so; keep the universe, scrap the specifics.

It was a big challenge. I worked to not contradict anything in Star Trek history that was in TV or in the movies. It required a lot of creative problem solving."

As witnessed in every Star Trek thread.

I don't see the problem. If an application of moralizing doesn't solve it, apply some combination of phasers and proton torpedoes. If that doesn't work either invert the polaron emitters, route plasma flow through the jeffries tubes, or modulate the output of the main deflector. Problem solved!

You know, I'm a thoroughly dedicated Star Trek fan; I watched the original series avidly in the 1970s as a kid, and I've enjoyed all the movies (some more than others) and the new series (some more than others)...and I regard this book as an overwhelming waste of time for the author and the readers both.

I have nothing against detailed "world-creation" (or what Tolkien called subcreation) from Homer to William Blake to A. Conan Doyle, it's been a great human pasttime. But while some subcreated worlds (Larry Niven's "Known Space" cycle of stories; Middle Earth) are designed for this kind of scrutiny and flourish when examined this closely, others, like Star Wars and Star Trek and the Marvel comics "Universe," just don't.

Like the Sherlock Holmes stories, the various parts of Star Trek were just too haphazardly assembled and jury-rigged to be made to add up to a cohesive whole that has any faux-historical meaning. And, unlike Doyle's famously incoherent Holmes stories (which have a thoroughly inconsistent chronology), the Trek universe was created over many decades by dozens of writers, working very quickly and under duress, each of whom was more concerned with the particulars of his or her individual narratives than with attempting to fit their work into the cumulative Trek mosaic.

What Trek needs -- what it thrives under -- is cultural and literary analysis. Understanding what these stories mean in the context of the historical backgrounds of the television productions (civil rights and Vietnam informing the original show; globalism and technological considerations driving The Next Generation, which also went in for attempts at more detailed and abstracted character studies; post-Cold War sensibilities influencing Deep Space Nine) , as well as understanding why Star Trek is so good -- why its characters and stories and abstracted concepts represent the very best science fiction has to offer -- this is what's interesting; not the endlessly dreary retconning, fudging and whole-cloth invention that feeds into this kind of project.

"Nerdliness" is famously about escapism; about leaving the real world for an imaginary one. As a card-carrying nerd who's also an adult, I very much prefer it when fantastical stories have some bearing on reality (as did, for example, the superb recent Battlestar: Galactica). It's no accident that "the straights" start to take interest in "our" stuff when it gets out of its own hermetically-sealed bubble and starts acknowledging reality. This book is a step in the exact opposite direction.

ON EDIT: I'll give a couple of specific examples. The "Organian Peace Treaty" (which essentially nullifies all possible subsequent conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, by fiat) was introduced in the original show. Obviously the only point of the "Organian Peace Treaty" was to allow the writer to make a wry, telling point about war itself -- how even the pacifists (like Captain Kirk) become warmongers in the end, when disputed "neutral" territory is involved. The Organians are a great Rod Serling-style conceit because they look like the weak, uncivilized innocents who always occupy danger zones in wars (as Kirk remarks) but they're actually superhuman sophisticates who have the power to end the entire conflict. The Organians are the perfect sci-fi plot device: their actions bring home the point of the fable in a way that makes for a thoughtful meditation on warfare. The problem is that it completely destroys the possibility of any subsequent conflict with the Klingons, which is why it got carefully ignored in all subsequent Trek.

Another example is the Cochrane/Vulcan/Borg story. I liked Zephram Cochran when he first appeared in the original show. I liked the idea that one man invented warp drive; it made sense in the context of the episode's story (which required a recognizable earthman from the past). But I thought that the story they contrived for First Contact was, frankly, idiotic. The strained contrivances by which a group of writers forced Picard's Enterprise, the Borg, and Cochrane into a single plot simply because those were the elements that were deemed commercially viable for the movie thoroughly turned me off; it's obviously not the same Cochrane; it's (in my opinion) a dumb, unsatisfying story, and there's no reason for subsequent Trek to regard it as gospel. This is one of many reasons I loved the J. J. Abrams movie, which (as happens all the time in comics) had no compunctions about throwing it all out and starting over. To do what this book is doing -- to struggle with all this dross and minutia in the belief that the cumulative "history" has an overarching value or meaning -- is to completely miss the point of the whole endeavor.

(Also, Vulcans say "Live long and prosper" when they're leaving, not arriving.)

While this is true, Matt Decker was still the captain of the vessel. His rank is commodore. Also, he would have had to be a captain in rank to achieve the rank of commodore.

Does that mean commodore is not a substantive rank in Star Fleet, that while he is a commodore he reverts to captain? Curious because even in the U.S. Navy commodore has been both subsantive and temporary command.

(or just that he probably would have progressed through captaincy before promotion?)

I'm aware of the historical and present-day usage, but want to know the Star Fleet rules.

Usually, Commodore is a temporary rank of convenience, when there are two Captains on one vessel. In order for there to be no confusion of the chain of command when giving orders, the visiting Captain is temporarily "frocked" to the Commodore rank. Commodores are also historically in charge of temporary fleets/flotillas.

ON EDIT: I'll give a couple of specific examples. The "Organian Peace Treaty" (which essentially nullifies all possible subsequent conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, by fiat) was introduced in the original show. Obviously the only point of the "Organian Peace Treaty" was to allow the writer to make a wry, telling point about war itself -- how even the pacifists (like Captain Kirk) become warmongers in the end, when disputed "neutral" territory is involved. The Organians are a great Rod Serling-style conceit because they look like the weak, uncivilized innocents who always occupy danger zones in wars (as Kirk remarks) but they're actually superhuman sophisticates who have the power to end the entire conflict. The Organians are the perfect sci-fi plot device: their actions bring home the point of the fable in a way that makes for a thoughtful meditation on warfare. The problem is that it completely destroys the possibility of any subsequent conflict with the Klingons, which is why it got carefully ignored in all subsequent Trek.

I really miss Star Trek (TNG, DS9 & Voyager)! I remember the week after Voyager ended, and I had this empty feeling, akin to mourning, knowing all too well that something substantial has exited from my life. I hope there will be a Star Trek TV reboot of sorts, but by the grace of God please don't make it a prequel!

While this is true, Matt Decker was still the captain of the vessel. His rank is commodore. Also, he would have had to be a captain in rank to achieve the rank of commodore.

Does that mean commodore is not a substantive rank in Star Fleet, that while he is a commodore he reverts to captain? Curious because even in the U.S. Navy commodore has been both subsantive and temporary command.

(or just that he probably would have progressed through captaincy before promotion?)

I'm aware of the historical and present-day usage, but want to know the Star Fleet rules.

Any naval officer who commands a ship (titled commanding officer, or CO) is addressed by naval custom as "captain" while aboard in command. Officers with the rank of captain travelling aboard a vessel they do not command should be addressed by their rank and name (e.g., "Captain Smith"), but they should not be referred to as "the captain" to avoid confusion with the vessel's captain.[1] According to US Navy wardroom etiquette, an embarked Navy captain is addressed in that setting as "Commodore".

ON EDIT: I'll give a couple of specific examples. The "Organian Peace Treaty" (which essentially nullifies all possible subsequent conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, by fiat) was introduced in the original show. Obviously the only point of the "Organian Peace Treaty" was to allow the writer to make a wry, telling point about war itself -- how even the pacifists (like Captain Kirk) become warmongers in the end, when disputed "neutral" territory is involved. The Organians are a great Rod Serling-style conceit because they look like the weak, uncivilized innocents who always occupy danger zones in wars (as Kirk remarks) but they're actually superhuman sophisticates who have the power to end the entire conflict. The Organians are the perfect sci-fi plot device: their actions bring home the point of the fable in a way that makes for a thoughtful meditation on warfare. The problem is that it completely destroys the possibility of any subsequent conflict with the Klingons, which is why it got carefully ignored in all subsequent Trek.

The Undiscovered Country.

There's no reference to the "Organian Peace Treaty" in that movie. The Klingon communicating with the Excelsior says "Obey treaty stipulations and remain outside the Neutral Zone" but there's no specificity beyond that, and it sounds from what he's saying like a conventional treaty -- an agreement -- not a reference to the deus ex machina Aylborne creates in the original episode. The only subsequent specific reference to the Organians is in "The Trouble With Tribbles."

I really miss Star Trek (TNG, DS9 & Voyager)! I remember the week after Voyager ended, and I had this empty feeling, akin to mourning, knowing all too well that something substantial has exited from my life. I hope there will be a Star Trek TV reboot of sorts, but by the grace of God please don't make it a prequel!

as much as I would like a new show that takes place after the dominion war, I'm not sure what the heck it could be about. Future Janeway effectively marginalized the Borg, and once starfleet gets around to making time ships and basically has to enforce protection of the timestream, the federation is now all powerful. If you control time, you control the universe. So there's no room for any conflicts. That's why I like Abram's attempt to reboot.

as much as I would like a new show that takes place after the dominion war, I'm not sure what the heck it could be about. Future Janeway effectively marginalized the Borg, and once starfleet gets around to making time ships and basically has to enforce protection of the timestream, the federation is now all powerful. If you control time, you control the universe. So there's no room for any conflicts. That's why I like Abram's attempt to reboot.

You could probably make a fun series using the time traveling to show various events (and how the Federation has to intervene to keep the time-stream "accurate"). They could have gone that route with Enterprise's "Temporal Cold War" and it could have been a blast, with things changing as one side messes with the time-stream, then having to be changed back and so on. It would have allowed them to show a lot more of the historical events we've never seen before too (Romulan War, WW3, Eugenics Wars, etc.) Might be hell to keep consistent, but then again, you could just excuse any inconsistencies as consequences of the time meddling, so maybe it wouldn't matter.

Or hell, just do a really different series that focuses on Temporal Historians observing events throughout Federation history. Not sure there'd be much of a market for that, but I'd enjoy it.

You know, I'm a thoroughly dedicated Star Trek fan; I watched the original series avidly in the 1970s as a kid, and I've enjoyed all the movies (some more than others) and the new series (some more than others)...and I regard this book as an overwhelming waste of time for the author and the readers both.

......

To do what this book is doing -- to struggle with all this dross and minutia in the belief that the cumulative "history" has an overarching value or meaning -- is to completely miss the point of the whole endeavor.

(Also, Vulcans say "Live long and prosper" when they're leaving, not arriving.)

So you've read the book I assume?As someone who enjoys seeing a back story fleshed out I'm looking forward to this.

as much as I would like a new show that takes place after the dominion war, I'm not sure what the heck it could be about. Future Janeway effectively marginalized the Borg, and once starfleet gets around to making time ships and basically has to enforce protection of the timestream, the federation is now all powerful. If you control time, you control the universe. So there's no room for any conflicts. That's why I like Abram's attempt to reboot.

You could probably make a fun series using the time traveling to show various events (and how the Federation has to intervene to keep the time-stream "accurate"). They could have gone that route with Enterprise's "Temporal Cold War" and it could have been a blast, with things changing as one side messes with the time-stream, then having to be changed back and so on. It would have allowed them to show a lot more of the historical events we've never seen before too (Romulan War, WW3, Eugenics Wars, etc.) Might be hell to keep consistent, but then again, you could just excuse any inconsistencies as consequences of the time meddling, so maybe it wouldn't matter.

Or hell, just do a really different series that focuses on Temporal Historians observing events throughout Federation history. Not sure there'd be much of a market for that, but I'd enjoy it.

Jake Sisko would be a good main historian character. He could be a temporal caretaker that instructs new cadets on past events that he had to correct. Like case studies at Starfleet academy.

You know, I'm a thoroughly dedicated Star Trek fan; I watched the original series avidly in the 1970s as a kid, and I've enjoyed all the movies (some more than others) and the new series (some more than others)...and I regard this book as an overwhelming waste of time for the author and the readers both.

......

To do what this book is doing -- to struggle with all this dross and minutia in the belief that the cumulative "history" has an overarching value or meaning -- is to completely miss the point of the whole endeavor.

(Also, Vulcans say "Live long and prosper" when they're leaving, not arriving.)

So you've read the book I assume?As someone who enjoys seeing a back story fleshed out I'm looking forward to this.

No, I haven't read the book. My point is that Star Trek has been built in such a way that the back story is not worth fleshing out; that's what I was trying to make clear. Tolkien, Niven, Frank Herbert; these are writers whose creations are unified, detailed and structurally sound to the extent that there's something to be gained by reconstructing the hidden superstructure. Trek (like Sherlock Holmes and Star Wars) doesn't bear up under scrutiny in this fashion and is much more profitably examined from a literary, cultural, technological and philosophical standpoint (rather than the dreary task of attempting to create a concordance).

as well as understanding why Star Trek is so good -- why its characters and stories and abstracted concepts represent the very best science fiction has to offer

I thought you were being serious until I saw that. Then I realized this whole post was just a brilliant bit of trolling.

I wasn't trolling, I was exaggerating. I admit that, when I typed that phrase, I realized it was a bit much, but I was concerned that I would be accused of not sufficiently respecting Star Trek so I wanted to make clear the degree to which I hold the show in high regard.

I shouldn't have tried to get into "best"/"worst." All I'm saying is, some imaginary universes are worth mapping out and others just aren't -- they aren't built for it and don't hold up under the scrutiny.

I hate how all new shows are moving to long arcs (although it has its place ala the walking dead). Bring back episodic sci fi that can be didactic, philoshical, and sometimes fun at the same time.

I can see both sides. Overarching plotlines force the writers to be consistent, and helps avoid the "freak of the week" mentality. At the very least, touching on the greater plot in each episode to keep things grounded.

They do that when they have new talent in an old franchise. They are worried about rejection, so for the first one, they go back to the basics. No unnecessary risk; do what has worked in the past. Simple straightforward plot.. Casino Royale was he best Bond ever I think. I went to see the newest Bond; the trajectory for those is downwards.

So I worry about the second new Star Trek movie. Although the plot for the first one was almost too simple.

But I wouldn't worry too much about this coffee table book cheapening it too much. It's half pictures it sounds like; how much can it hold? And I bet Abrams is pleased with the timing too.

“If humanity were to make contact with other intelligent life forms in the universe, how would our civilization respond?”

One major theme and philosophy of Star Trek is where our planet's societies work together using technology to make our planet a kind of paradise where every individual can thrive. The next step in that philosophy was to include other planetary inhabitants in that goal. Certain admirable qualities are an important ingredient learned from both adversity and sacrifice, which resulted in Star Trek's guiding principles. In my humble view, (Although not a part of the first 150 years.), the Star Trek Voyager series best expressed this philosophy.

As for those who complain that Star Trek is not a suitable for scrutinizing specifics, may not understand certain Star Trek philosophies. The first Star Trek series was about accepting, tolerating and even celebrating different cultures. Star Trek has always had many influences over its evolution. Various directors, actors, writers and even fans have influenced Star Trek. Many did their best to tie together the various stories and themes, while obviously others were less successful. To me, this what makes Star Trek great and hopefully will encourage imaginative and positive changes to betterment of our own society.

What I would like to see are more realistic stories on Star Trek economics. There have been a few who have written on the subject, but those I've read are vague and are generally economically anemic. Corruption and greed rule the day in modern society, it would be fun to find a real world 'Start Trek like economics' that could help solve these issues. It maybe the most important inspirational thing we could take away from Star Trek.

One thing that is for certain is that with Star Trek nothing is written in stone. Even in the first TV series, Captain Kirk did his level best to get a better ending by going back in time. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time, (YET!), but as a fan, I have no problem with authors writing and rewriting Star Trek history, I think that's one of the very things that makes Star Trek so fun.

It's nice to have this book so that if the studios ever decide to make another prequel to the Original Series, the scriptwriters can contradict everything the book says -- including stuff established in Enterprise, of course.

No worries. They'll just use the same cop-out excuse for laziness and lack of attention to detail in their writing that JJ Abrams did. "Alternate timelines" will solve any and all discrepancies in the continuity.

aeberbach wrote:

Does that mean commodore is not a substantive rank in Star Fleet, that while he is a commodore he reverts to captain? Curious because even in the U.S. Navy commodore has been both subsantive and temporary command.

(or just that he probably would have progressed through captaincy before promotion?)

I'm aware of the historical and present-day usage, but want to know the Star Fleet rules.

I'm not sure about the rank of commodore in Starfleet. It does seem to have been abandoned by the time of TNG. But it does seem that the honorific of "captain" works the same way it does in the present, in that the commanding officer of a ship is always her captain, no matter the actual rank that officer holds. In TMP, for example, once Admrial Kirk was assigned to take over command of the Enterprise from Decker Jr., everybody started calling him "Captain" again, even though he was still wearing admiral's stripes.

Personally, it doesn't make much sense to me that the navy got rid of the rank of commodore. "Commodore" and "rear admiral" roll off the tongue much nicer than "rear admiral, lower half" and "rear admiral, upper half".

This! The TWT episode along with DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations are one (actually 2 of my favourite ST episodes

About the book: I don't actually care if it's good or bad, I just like that ST is being kept alive (of sorts...). While I sometimes re-watch some episodes (I have all the series and movies), it would be nice to have something new. And I'd very much prefer a good series (just please don't make it a pre-pre-prequel, I couldn't care less about Kirk's teenage years ) over another movie.

It's easy to be selfless in the Star Trek universe. All you have to care about is becoming better human being and you can really do whatever you want to do.

Honestly, I stopped watching ST a long time ago. They just make me depressed about our own universe.

This sounds like a problem I've been thinking about lately, about contemporary entertainment, especially of the space opera, fantasy, and computer RPG variety. Whatever else these stories say, they always celebrate courage. And yet, I don't think they particularly encourage courage among their readers. The characters engage in acts of courage so extreme, and do it so frequently, so successfully, that it's just obviously beyond what any actual person could actually achieve.

I was thinking, in fact, of an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, in which Commander Tucker manages to "reboot" the engines, involving temporarily shutting off the anti-matter containment system, using his raw knowledge to perform an undocumented procedure, in a matter of seconds, risking destruction of the ship to prevent certain destruction of the ship. To top it off, there was a fair amount of active running, jumping, and whatnot over the course of the scene. At least one major character pulls off a comparable major feat of skill and courage every episode, and yet things don't change much from episode to episode.

Our stories are overrun with this, to an absurd extent. The contrast makes our own, real acts of courage seem trivial in comparison. I saw a comment recently that almost everything adolescents do takes courage, because they're doing it for the first time. Remember how much courage it took the first time you told someone directly that you were attracted to them? How much courage does it take to politely but firmly criticize a sexist comment at a staff meeting? Yet it ends up feeling like a pathetic imitation of real courage.

One of the things problematic about the Star Trek legacy, in particular, is that Roddenberry was trying to portray Starfleet as the product of a civilization that had overcome the greatest flaws of its own time. In part, this was watered down -- one of the premises was that the Federation had reached a point of social and economic development in which money was no longer necessary, a point that some later writers tried to work their way around rather than embrace the radical implications of the premise.

I should note, though, that some of the most interesting of the later Star Trek series stories were in ST:DS9, which, in overriding some of Roddenberry's rules, had some of the most interesting and socially provocative storylines.

More obviously, classic Star Trek, and its successors, tried to portray a civilization that had overcome the forms of bigotry with which we are familiar, and tried to generalize beyond that; more than that, the "Prime Directive" seems to have been meant as an effort to avoid the moral hazards of colonialism, specifically paternalistic liberal colonialism. Of course, it's notorious that the "Prime Directive" rarely came up except to be violated.

But a deeper problem was that, to maintain a narrative in which the Federation always behaves well in its encounters with new cultures, is that the cultures were often described so that it was easy to imagine the Federation getting along with them -- so that the aliens were simply humans with funny bumps on their foreheads, with familiar political and social structures, and only minor differences, plus one noticeable difference that would be the source of trouble for the given episode. Often, in ST:TNG and the later series, I got the uncomfortable feeling that our intrepid explorers were simply traveling from one all-white gated suburb of Los Angeles to the next.

The lowest point to which Star Trek sank, for me, was an episode of ST: Voyager, in which Lt. Paris was involved in a film noir murder mystery. The critical detail was that the dog that didn't bark, indicating that it knew the murderer. It was a dog. It wasn't an alien critter, that served a role analogous to a dog. It wasn't something that resembled a dog, but looked like a dog, so they called it a dog. They didn't dye its furry a funny color, or edit the sound effect so it made a strange sound, or even make up a different name for it. It was, in all respects, just a dog, in a story that wouldn't have had to have been changed in any detail whatsoever if the Voyager had been orbiting Earth.

In some ways, I think of Iain Banks' "Culture" novels as a successor to the Star Trek heritage, in that it posits a society that appears, in most respects, to be ideal, and to generally be doing the right thing, but you often have to wrestle with the ethics of the way it intervenes in other civilizations it encounters. But it struggles a bit with the "Superman" problem as well, which some of the Star Trek series seemed to have to struggle with a bit: once you've established how incredibly awesome this civilization is, it's hard to take seriously that anything comprehensible could really threaten it.

I've just seen the first season of Voyager and I think that Jordan Orlando and FoolishOwl have respectively pointed out what works so well and what utterly fails in Star Trek. It requires a lot of goodwill to get past the whole inconsistent mess that the series can prove to be if you think about what it tells you more than 5 minutes. Yet, if you look at it as a nice collection of scifi short-stories who happen to have the very same characters and universe tied together with a loose arc, you find nice, entertaining and surprising stories all around. It requires not caring about things most modern series required us to care, such as consistency, episodes strongly grounded in a powerfull and well-written story-arc and lots of credibilty. But, taken individually, I found myself enjoying most of the episodes. It's also a bit refreshing to look at a series that doesn't consist in politically killing your way through success.

Now, I think this book is a bit freaky if, like me, you're not a hardcore Star-Trek fan. But you could also say the same thing about the huge amount of "Extended Universe" that are all the Star Wars things which are not movies.

as well as understanding why Star Trek is so good -- why its characters and stories and abstracted concepts represent the very best science fiction has to offer

I thought you were being serious until I saw that. Then I realized this whole post was just a brilliant bit of trolling.

I shouldn't have tried to get into "best"/"worst." All I'm saying is, some imaginary universes are worth mapping out and others just aren't -- they aren't built for it and don't hold up under the scrutiny.

I don't think you are necessarily wrong. There are some excellent stories in TOS, TNG and even DS9. Of course there are other TV scifi shows offering similar high quality short fiction, but not much better than the best of Star Trek. Perhaps if we take the best of the best short stories in written form and compare them to the best ST episodes, the former will still be somewhat better, but not by a huge margin.

Of course on average Star Trek is by no means great, because the format of only loosely connected episodes almost dictates a large percentage of average or outright bad episodes. One could probably trim TNG down to four and Voyager to two seasons without loosing anything worth mentioning, and even DS9 had a lot of filler episodes despite the more continuous story.

Wrong on all three counts. William Windom is the actor who portrayed Commodore Matt Decker in Doomsday Machine.

Hopefully it's the author of this article who made that error and not the author of the history book.

/startreknerd

While this is true, Matt Decker was still the captain of the vessel. His rank is commodore. Also, he would have had to be a captain in rank to achieve the rank of commodore.

A Commodore, in the current US Navy, is a title rather than a rank, for Captains commanding multiple units. It is also used as a courtesy for Captains visiting other ships, as by tradition a vessel can only have one Captain on board; the visiting officer is referred to as Commodore for the duration of their stay.

Cesar Torres / Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City.